( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 10. 11. 2000 passed by learned ACMM rejecting petitioner s ap- plication for exemption from personal attendance during trial.

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is facing trial under Section 420indian Penal Code read with Section 120 B indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 on the basis of a com- plaint filed by the Chief Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. She was admitted to bail in the year 1993. The case is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence. The prosecution has cited 140 witnesses out of which only 24 have been ex- amined so far. As such it is manifestly clear that the Trial still has to go a long way before reaching its culmination.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1. 9. 2000 when the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence the petitioner, who is a patient of Bronchial Asthma and rhd. Arthritis suddenly fell ill and as such could not appear before the Court. Her ap- plication seeking exemption was rejected and non-bailable warrants were issued against her. Her application for cancellation of warrants was pending for 27. 9. 2000 but that morning itself she was arrested in pursuance of non-bailable warrants. She had to remain in" custody for about a week and was released on bail only when orders were passed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a large number of witnesses still remains to be examined at the stage of pre-charge as well as post charge evidence. The petitioner who is an old lady and is suffering from various ailments is not required to be present in person on all the dates as she is not disputing her identify. He submits that there was no good reason for declining her request for exemption from personal appearance. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and she be exempted from personal attendance.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition mainly on the ground that on account of absence of the petitioner the proceedings before the Trial court have been getting delayed. He also argues that the mere fact that the petitioner is a lady and is suffering from some ailments is not a sufficient ground for exempting her from personal attendance during the trial.

( 6 ) SECTION 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the Courts to exempt an accused from personal attendance during enquiry or trial reads as under :

"317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - (1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the per- sonal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the in- terests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such in- quiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately. "

( 7 ) THIS provision sufficiently empowers a Judge or a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused and permit him to appear through his pleader and lays down that the Judge or Magistrate may in his discretion at any stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of the accused, if necessary. The provision does not prescribe parameters or any hard and fast rule